The finishing problems, sure those have been the same problems for a few years, but the defensive and midfield issues last night aren't something that the team had for the majority of last year or the years before. The midfield just got over run and the defense didn't get things sorted out well at all.
I like this but theres a couple things I'd bring up. IF you notice Zusi is tucked inside because ille is pressuring the ball in a spot you could expect Zusi too. Zusi is trying to cover for Ille and as you said does a poor job of it. The reason this play happens is because we are way to spread out which brings up your point of the deep line. I would argue that we have the personal to maintain a high-compact press. If everyone is stepping high and on the same page we in theory have the midfield and defense to do this. Hell we did this in the preseason. That's where my disappointment factors in. Just because we are "pressing" doesn't mean we have to be open. There's a way we can be compact and maintain the high line.
I actually do think the defense/midfield problems are the same as they have been. Or, more precisely, the tactic we play invites the opponent to attack in very obvious ways, and we rely on everything working PERFECTLY in midfield, defense, and in goal, or else we stand the chance to get scored on. Given that our offense is so bad, we have almost no room for error. Last year, through health and career best performances, it worked in defense. But we basically live on a knife's edge, by choice.
Ok, lots of emotional responses to the loss. It sucked, but there is no need to panic. Taking an objective look at the game NYCFC, top to bottom, is a better team than SKC. At least at this point in the season they are. I don’t recall an opening season game for SKC where they looked this unprepared (I’ve been to every one of them home and away). I have to put this performance squarely in the lap of the coaching staff. They exited the season early in 2017 and have had plenty of time and money to prepare for the season. They are the ones who make the player decisions and prepare them for the season. I fully understand this is a partial rebuilding year for the team that is playing with new people, but to an outside observer, they get a C- for their effort. I expect that to change because PV is an ultra competitive guy and will squeeze the most out of what he has to work with. But, he better do it fast. The next three games (Chicago, San Jose, Colorado) will allow him to get things figured out before SKC has to play LA, Seattle and Vancouver in April. If he doesn’t, this team could easily be 0-7 by the end of April. Then, it would be time to panic.
Shelton better be ready in Chicago, and he better be good, or it will be a long wait until the summer transfer window opens.
I didn't think that Croizet's play was bad at all. Yes, he conceded some balls out of play, but it looked to me that a lot that had to do with not having a feel with those around him, especially Espinoza. For both being DP's, they didn't look good together. I thought Croizet had some good runs, but, I do think that he looked winded. Gutierrez looked ok and had our highest Audi index, whatever that's worth. I don't get Lobato. Weren't both goals from his marks? So many things were wrong, but especially just before the end of the first half when we did not send the ball directly into the box.
I think the thing that concerns me the most is not necessarily any individual player, but the system itself, like multiple posters have alluded to. There are multiple problems with the system, but they boil down to a few key points, I think: The lack of goals is a feature, not a bug. It doesn't seem to matter who plays, the poor finishing and low number of goals never changes. This is a system failure, not on any particular player. Other teams long ago figured out how to neutralize our center forward and place them on an island alone looking for something productive to do. We essentially play every game with 10 men rather than 11. Players being shoehorned into a system which doesn't maximize their talents or skills. Does anyone even know what Croizet's real position is? Where did he play before coming here? I forget. Is he an a-mid? A winger? a striker? If playing centrally and creating chances are his best attributes, then it seems he and Felipe were both brought in for the same position, which is a TD failure. And Lobato - I thought he was brought in as an a-mid or winger as well, but somehow now he's a left back? Another TD failure. Wingers, wingers, wingers all day every day, with no one good enough for them to serve to. We could probably get into the teens listing the number of wingers we have tried out over the past 4-6 years. The fact is, none of them have been consistent goal scorers, and none of them have really been consistent assist men, either, because the SYSTEM requires a stud center forward to put chances away, and other than Dwyer to some extent, we haven't had that. Ever. Vermes' system seems to value utility men - versatility - over stand-out excellence at any particular position. Vermes was a master at MLS 2.0. I don't think he has kept up with MLS 3.0, and his stubborn inflexibility to adapt and change tactics has continued the same song that's been playing for over four years now. In the relative safety of MLS, Vermes's job will probably never be in jeopardy as long as we are challenging for US Open Cup and sneaking into the playoffs. It's probably going to take missing the playoffs a couple years in a row before he's truly on the hot seat. It could be a long, long season.
Is anyone still in a bad mood on Tuesday from the game on Sunday? I haven't been on here in years. It has woken me up. I feel like the players looked in 1999 at the autograph table right before Alexi "retired".
And just to clarify what I meant by MLS 2.0 and 3.0. For my own purposes, I tend to lump the eras like this (looking through an admittedly SKC-tinged lens.) 1996-2006 MLS 1.0. Early history (Could maybe divide this into two parts with the 2002 World Cup ushering in MLS 1.5) 2007-2013 MLS 2.0. Beckham years. Vermes was at the top of his game here, nailing the draft almost every year to bring in quality players, maximizing the rebrand bounce, flummoxing the rest of the league with his high-pressure, defense-first system. Culminating in an MLS Cup win against a similar smaller-market side in RSL who was also a 2.0 force. 2014-present MLS 3.0. The GAM/TAM years. Teams like Toronto, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, and NYCFC have capitalized here by bringing in true impact players at nearly every position and significantly upgrading the talent level of the league in general. The draft has nearly disappeared as a source of talent. The local academies have started producing a little, but no major impact. Vermes's strategies have grown old and stale, just like our key players (Besler, Zusi, Espinoza, Feilhaber, Sinovic, etc.) Players like Ilie, Opara (after many injury woes), and Melia have been pleasant surprises, but they are all on the defensive side. The offense has completely stagnated during this era.
Yes. Forget all the numerous shitty individual player performances and PV starting a wing forward at left back (who missed his mark on both goals). Here's why I'm still pissed. This was the first time I can remember PV approaching a home game as if SKC are the provincial side hosting a league front runner (i.e. Bologna in Serie A or Southampton for you anglophiles). SKC sat back, let NYCFC press us instead of the other way around, and hoped for a set piece goal. Hell, we even let NYCFC wear our home colors.
Good thing we didn't wear the jerseys that say "No Other Club" on them. Wouldn't want that nonsense getting exposed on national television.
The thing that kills me is, after this offseason, we all KNEW that this was going to happen. I think we all tried to talk ourselves into thinking that it was a good offseason. That Gutierrez, Croizet, and Russell would be the answers. But that vague sense of uneasiness never left, not when looking at Rubio and Shelton and trying to fool ourselves into thinking, "Yep, these are our guys who are going to get us over the hump." In reality, we all knew exactly what this lineup was going to do, and we saw it on Sunday. So if we can all see that, why can't PV and Robb? Robb's post-playoff "guarantee" tweet of fixing our goal scoring problems by investing in a #9 grates on me more and more each day. Do not promise crap like that to your fanbase and then start the next season with Diego Rubio at center forward.
I will give PV and Robb until the end of the summer transfer window to bring in a #9, giving them the benefit of the doubt that the right fit wasn't available in the winter window. All bets are off if they fail this summer. If we get a significant step-up in quality at #9 this summer, maybe we can reverse our recent trend and struggle early this year and then gel later in the year, peaking at playoff time.
The dread has been growing steadily with me since Dwyer scored 20 goals only with small abatements during our odd year Cup runs. The backsliding on squad rotation and even player substitutions, the annual fall-off at the end of the season. It feels like everything has been broken with this squad since SAS's double-poster in Portland. If it were "just one game", I'd agree that we're all overreacting. But it's not one game. When did Vermes take over as TD? 2007? This is the twelfth year of the Vermes era. And four trophies is freaking awesome.... But it's the sense of what could have been. The doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results. The seeing the problems and never addressing them. The turning the phrase "Sporting Fit" from a badge of honor to a cruel joke. I can't pretend to have anywhere the same level of soccer knowledge that Vermes has. And his staff are all professional lifers, too. They have to see and know everything we talk about here. That's probably the most frustrating thing of all.
Can I be a bigger a**hole than I normally am for a minute? I'm not sure Vermes and his staff have a lot more ideas on how to improve (at least on the offensive side). If so, why haven't they been implemented if the team has been having the same problems for a while now? I guess one answer could be the players. However, he's also the guy in charge of getting players...
Yeah, this is the perspective I have been forced to adopt. Nothing ever changes in our approach and tactics. And, the hard truth is that the post-rebrand seasons of 2011-2013 are actually the outliers when you look at the entirety of Vermes's rein as TD.
I was thinking about it and wondering why all the panic-station hot-takery was going on, and then I realized what was really happening here. Everybody's fears about this season played out almost perfectly on the field on Sunday. The offense was non-existent, the unusual creative player signed as a number 10 DP this offseason looked very subpar, our defense was not stout enough to bail us out of the trouble we always find ourselves in, and what's worst, is that a high-spending, flashy team literally looked like they were a league above. We didn't see any gem on offense stand out from the pack. We didn't see our balanced and talented midfield do much to possess the ball, create chances, or slow down the other team's attack. It looked like regression. Like our offense was not only as weak as last year but worse. It looked like our defense, that foundation that we built this whole thing on, struggled for cohesion and dominance in a variety of situations. We looked as a team like we'd taken a step back from the pack and NYC took a step forward. So it's not so much that this will show our trajectory. It's that everything we were nervous about going in was painfully highlighted. It could get way better or way worse from here, who knows. Just an unfortunate first game to have, to get outshone just so obviously.
Don't fret. The SKC office reminds us: "Losing a home opener leaves a sour taste, to be sure, but it should be no cause for alarm bells. In fact, each of the last eight MLS Cup champions have failed to win their home opener that season. " So, apparently, we're still dealing with the MLS Cup winning hangover. The problem we really have right now is that while it is clearly true that game one of a 34 game season isn't definitive, SKC seasons go downhill after the opening. We are right now a fresher, more energetic versions of who we will be in October. I was looking at EPB's efforts in his new setting. For his first start, their young manager trotted out a 3 man backline for the first time this season, and maybe the first time in his career (can't tell for sure but I think so). Now, it didn't win, but it looks to be a case of a manager looking at his squad and determining a different approach gives this group a better chance. We look at our failings this weekend, and maybe it's simply rust or failing to gel, issues that faced every other team in MLS. But if we look at the classy preseason of Amor, we know full well that he's a possible answer for our defense only if Opara/Besler get hurt. We aren't going to solve our midfield getting overrun issue by playing three in the back and pushing four or five into the midfield, even if those might be better fits for this group (not saying they are, but we know that is not an option). We aren't going to go with two up top, we're going to stick with a true 9 despite the fact that we don't have one. We aren't even going to try to paper over that crack. I admit, I'm fine with us being great defensively and gegenpressing ourselves into a lot of attacks that come to nothing but are exciting to see. But being a lesser version of our flawed but what the hell side we've been in the past, during a season when the bar got raised several notches across MLS, is a depressing notion.
Scouting SKC has always been simple. The difference between 2011-13 and 2016-today is that in 2011-13 teams knew exactly what we were going to do, but didn't really have any reliable way to counter it. But the league evolves and there are hundreds of games of tape to watch and break down, and teams know exactly how to counter us. For SKC to win - we have to click on all cylinders and outplay our opponents. Our tactical inflexibility is our achilles heel, and the rest of the league knows that. And that inflexibility covers both leading and trailing. How many minutes in the last 2 1/2 years Dwyer was here was he paired on the field with another player up top? 30? 40? When we threw on a forward for a late push, inevitably it was Dwyer who subbed out. Or more likely we just changed outside backs while chasing a goal. I like our 4-3-3. I see the potential. I've seen it work. But we've got to be able to adapt and catch teams off guard. Baseball teams steal bases not because it's a smart play (statistically it's absolutely stupid), but because it keeps the other team honest and off balance. We never zig when the other team expects us to zag.
At a coaching clinic, a former Scotish National Team coach said, "if you ask your players to keep score and you ask them what the score is in training; if they say it's a tie, you send them for a run. They are not trying." Ties are the worst....especially after blowing a lead.....especially at home Yr Ties % Place in Division 06 8/32 25 5/6 07 7/30 23 5/7 08 9/30 30 4/7 09 9/30 30 6/7 10 6/30 20 3/8 11 12/34 35 1/9 12 9/34 26 1/9 13 7/34 21 2/10 14 7/34 21 5/10 15 9/34 26 6/10 16 8/34 24 5/10 17 13/34 38 5/11 Some stats to further examine
Ties are a mixed bag. If you're tying instead of winning, they're bad. If you're tying instead of losing, they're great. If found that teams with the fewest losses tend to do the best in the post-season or knockout tournaments. We do well in the USOC because we're tough to beat. But we also end up in a lot of PK shootouts. A lot of ties with very few losses is the sign of a team that is really good and tough to beat. A lot of ties with nearly as many losses (or more) than wins is the sign of a team that keeps throwing points away. We used to be the former, but we're increasingly the latter.
Yeah ties on their own aren't inherently bad, most have to be looked at on a case by case basis as to whether it was a "good draw" or a "bad draw." The aspect of a draw can also change as a season progresses. These were our draws last year. 3/4 at DC - originally looked good given the PK save, as the season went on it looked bad. 3/11 vs Dallas - bad 3/31 at Toronto - good 5/13 at Orlando - I don't think this was a bad draw given lineup we put out. 6/10 vs Montreal - bad (poor Mustivar back pass) 6/17 at San Jose - I don't think this one is that bad given our history at San Jose, that said it's not good either. 7/1 vs Portland - Not entirely sure which way to go on this one because it was a good game, but given it was at home I lean bad. 7/6 vs Philadelphia - bad 7/22 at RSL - good 8/6 vs Atlanta - bad (late equalizer) 9/10 at Columbus - good 10/7 at Minnesota - given the fact we lost Melia before the equalizer I don't think this is totally bad, but it's not good either. 10/15 vs Houston - BAD. General consensus is that draws at home bad, draws on the road depending on the situation are good.
And I get frustrated when people say a 6-6-6 record is 0.500. It's not it's 24 of 54 points. 8-9-1 is 25 points, but the same people would say < 0.500. A tie is 2/3rds of a loss, not half a win.
I think most would say it's a sign of the Devil. And then wonder why they stopped playing midway through the season, with the assumption being players impaled by falling lightning rods